Why have a boring ol’ traditional White (man’s) Christmas when you can have a “Ho Ho Hotep” Christmas?
What I mean is, Tariq Nasheed, a.k.a., Mr. Cheesy Mack turned adjunct professor of ancient Black history, arts and antiquities at the University of YouTube, recently accused anyone who thought R. Kelly handled himself badly during his recent interview with Huffington Post‘s Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani (and in life in general) with conspiring with White supremacy.
More specifically, the producer of the popular Hidden Colors documentary series tweeted:
I saw that #RKelly interview and the host #CarolineModarressyTehrani was extremely rude, disrespectful and unprofessional
Has the WS sent their “Negro Shaming Committee” from Ebony.com to attack any Black people who disagree with #CaroMT #Rkelly ?
If you see any ppl on #BlackTwitter co-signing that disrespectful host #CaroMT who interviewed #RKelly, they are connected to #EbonyMag
I have no idea how Ebony is connected to White supremacy or what the Negro Shaming Committee is (But for those who do: Are they accepting applications?). But the series of tweets might be an indirect shot at Morehouse professor and CNN commentator Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, who hours before Nasheed’s declaration tweeted, “R. Kelly was rude, condescending, sexist, and flat out disgusting in his @HuffPostLive interview with @CaroMT.”
Naturally, Hill’s statement sparked all sorts of debate on social media. In particular, around the idea that those in the Black community who won’t defend R. Kelly are selective in their outrage and don’t carry the same disdain for celebrated White alleged sex offenders like Woody Allen, Roman Polanski or Jared the Subway guy.
I won’t go too deep down the rabbit’s butthole other than to say that Jared Fogle is in jail and the allegations against Allen, among other White sex offenders, have been called out for years in mainstream (a.k.a., the White man’s) media outlets. And I never understood how the existence of White-on-White violence somehow negates R. Kelly’s own acts of violence against other Black people?
I mean, why would any so-called conscious person champion that as the standard? Personally, I feel that those who think that sexual violence against women is okay because some White men “get away with it” would be more akin to White supremacy’s values and tenants than those who want to end sexual violence in general.
But what I find most interesting about Nasheed’s declaration, in particular, is that it comes from a man who considered White women to be “upscale” and the epitome of all things progressive and wonderful in society while Black women taste like oppression.
More specifically, he once said this on his Internet radio show about his preferences:
No matter what people say about me, you will always see me with a dime. An upscale Black b—h – if I f–k with one. I try to f–k with upscale b—hes of any race I deal with. White b—h, Asian b—h, whatever, she’s going to be upscale. I’m not messing with anybody’s hoodrat because number one: I live in the suburbs. Her little raggedy car is not going to make it to the suburbs. Her transmission will fall out by the time she makes it to the freeway. I’m not coming down to the ‘hood to f–k with her. Sh-t, ’cause in most cases she either lives with her mom or if she got her own spot, she ain’t got no got-damn furniture. What dude wants to leave the suburbs – what dude wants to leave his five-bedroom house – to go make love on a got-damn [wood] palette?
So just to recap, Nasheed:
- Calls Black women (and other races of women) b—hes
- Doesn’t live around “hoodrats”
- Makes disparaging remarks about Blacks who belong to a lower economic status (and who are most vulnerable to White supremacy by the way) than his own
- And does not practice Black empowerment (refuses to date a Black woman of a lower economic status, if he messes with one at all)
Yeah, nothing sounds anti-Black, White supremacist about that at all…
